Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kepler Finds Bizarre Systems

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the spinning-round-and-round dept.

NASA 120

RedEaredSlider writes "The Kepler Space Telescope has run across some truly bizarre solar systems. Among the candidates: a system with full-on planets orbiting in a Trojan configuration, one with planets that all orbit their planets in less than 10 days, and one in which resonances between small and large worlds essentially keep the thing together."

cancel ×

120 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Planets orbiting Planets? (3, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357308)

>one with planets that all orbit their planets in less than 10 days

Yeah, that is bizarre.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (2)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357336)

Almost sounds like a moon.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (3, Funny)

fahlesr1 (1910982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357358)

That's no moon! Its a space station!

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357400)

That's no space station! It's yet another incompetent slashdot editor who can't even properly copy and paste!

Give the ed a break (2)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359932)

The post consists of one sentence with 53 words! You can't expect him to look at all of those words before posting!

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357588)

Shut up, dolt.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (-1, Redundant)

MrLint (519792) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357360)

That's no moon!

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (-1, Offtopic)

fahlesr1 (1910982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357396)

Curse you and your Karma bonus! I post the same thing at the same time, but yours will get all the attention.

Time to go cry in the corner like the newbie I am.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357506)

Oh poor attention whore... Here, have some karma. [karma point]

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (0)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359030)

That's no moon!

It's yo momma!

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357398)

That's no moon... (obligatory)

I RTFA as a result of that erratic bit of composition. Apparently it's a star where two of four planets orbit the star within ten days, and either the submitter or the editor managed to butcher the information.

Captcha: Details

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (2)

RedEaredSlider (1855926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358254)

Guilty as charged, typed very fast.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (2)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357420)

Almost sounds like a moon.

... with a nice and warm Klemperer rosette in the center...

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359192)

Moonlets....

Not to be confused with Moon Lets in the back pages of magazines like The Inquirer or The Fortean times, where you can rent several acres of moon surface. They'll help you make the payments and fill out the paperwork. It's your problem how to get there.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357414)

Damn, Xzibit is keeping busy!

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358994)

Sup dawg! I heard you like tired slashdot cliches... I put a meme in your meme, so you cal lol while you lulz!

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357556)

Yes, those are strange planets. And so are the planets.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358440)

I think this would be an awesome place to live. I can outwit Yoda and say I'm over 1500 years old. Then again, I'd get pretty sick/poor from celebrating birthdays every 168 earth hours per individual. We'd have to start a tradition of only celebrating them once every 50 years.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (2)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359822)

My daughter was born on Feb 29th 2000 (leap century). She won't have another birthday for 400 years.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (0)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359978)

No: she'll only ever have one birthday, like anyone else. She'll have an anniversary of her birthday almost once every four years (occasionally only once every eight years), however... just like anyone else born on a Feb. 29th.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (2)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35361340)

So, why didn't you celebrate on 2/29/2004 or 2/29/2008 ? If I was her, you'ld owe some back presents.

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35361354)

It would be totally and completely different to live there, compared to life on Earth.

No Sundays, see.

Seriuosly, 10 stories a day and Slashdot can't be bothered to proofread ?

Re:Planets orbiting Planets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35365308)

That's a recursive solar system. It's as common form of organization, particularly in politics and cooking.

Fleet of Worlds (2)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357328)

Any Klemperer rosettes?

Re:Fleet of Worlds (4, Funny)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357366)

Any Klemperer rosettes?

Don't forget to put on a Trojan before heading into the rosette...

Re:Fleet of Worlds (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358650)

You mean this Rosette [blogspot.com] ? I'm pretty sure she's not the type to sleep around.

Re:Fleet of Worlds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359488)

Uh, no. Most of us don't watch cartoons any more. You might want to try a site that is more suitable to your age [disney.com] .

Re:Fleet of Worlds (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35360720)

Most of us don't watch cartoons any more.

Holy crap you are so wrong. [google.com]

Re:Fleet of Worlds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35361344)

Niven calls the FoW a "Kemplerer rosette" [sic].

Finally (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357472)

planets orbiting in a Trojan configuration

See! I knew it would finally happen to those Mac guys who think they'll never get a ........

Oh, wait.

"If confirmed"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357582)

For KOI 500 which has small orbits, Kepler must have seen each planet cross the star 10-50 times each. What more confirmation do they need?

talk about a bizzare/dangerous system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357604)

no astronomical observations required, it's US. plus, there's no where left to hide. see you at some of the many scheduled million baby play-dates. the bips will be unarmed, so no funny stuff.

Re-defining what's normal (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357612)

We're going to find so many alternatives to what we thought was normal solar system behavior. Perhaps we should have named the spacecraft Kinsey instead of Kepler.

Re:Re-defining what's normal (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358028)

There is no overall 'normal' solar system behavior.

There is normal behavior for a specific solar system, but that won't apply to other solar systems.

What we have is a hell of a lot of possibilities within the dynamics of gravity.

SO we will see a lot of behavior we didn't think of.

Story Writer Finds Truly Bizarre System (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357722)

A system with "planets that all orbit their planets". Now that's what I call truly bizarre.

"In an infinite universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357726)

blah blah" Douglas Adams

Orbital Resonance Visualization (3, Informative)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357730)

I was having trouble imagining the 8:6:4:3 resonance pattern, so I dug out this very cool visualisation: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/WebGL/KOI-730.html [princeton.edu] (needs a WebGL-capable browser, for some reason FF 4 doesn't work though).

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357800)

Neither Chrome nor Chromium work with that site (or it may just be me)

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35359250)

Chrome (9.0.597.107) works on Mac OSX (10.6.6).

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35361658)

Works fine for me Chrome and Chromium on OS X. It's just you or your OS/Browser combo.

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35363470)

Chromium worked for me, Ubuntu 10.10 amd64

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357806)

Works for me in 4.0b12. Very cool visualization. You'd need a PhD to predict the tides.

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (1)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358128)

Works for me in 4.0b12

How bizarre, I'm on 4.0b12pre (Mac) and I firmly recall WebGL working just a few days ago - not so much now. Oh well... Chrome did the job.

You'd need a PhD to predict the tides.

Whenever I hear about observations like these I basically fall into an infinite loop imagining what it would be like to actually see this in person.

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358458)

You'd need a PhD to predict the tides.

Or admit that you can't explain that. [geekosystem.com]

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358488)

You'd need a PhD to predict the tides.

No, just a computer.

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358536)

If you want to get sea-sick, drag your mouse to rotate the coordinate system. At an oblique angle, they bob around like drunken sailors.

Re:Orbital Resonance Visualization (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35360584)

You sure? I'm running FF4 Beta 10, it's fine here(Windows 7). Cool link, thank you.

Obligatory (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357750)

Yo Dawg, I heard you like orbits, so I put a planet on your planet so you can orbit while you orbit!

Doesn't this plethora of interesting configuration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357774)

make you wonder if some of them might have been engineered? Let's survey those systems with SETI equipment and see if we can't pick up some text about advanced economics... we sure need some help in that area.

Re:Doesn't this plethora of interesting configurat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358772)

I have a feeling advanced economics = no economics. At some point we will have to evolve beyond our petty selfishness and just start cooperating.

Kepler may define "typical" solar system (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357912)

We are not sure if the Solar System is typical or not. With 1200 planet candidates so far and a possibility of 10x more in the next few years, kepler should build a statistical database of what is typical and atypical. They systematically watching a fixed region of space of 155K stars for planetary transits. This region of he galaxy does have a bias toward our type of Suns. And the technique is biased toward large, fast, close-in planets.

Re:Kepler may define "typical" solar system (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358182)

There is a bias in the sampling. Current methods of detecting extrasolar planets favor finding large planets that orbit quickly. It could be that solar systems with Mars-sized planets that take 100 Earth years to orbit their sun are most common, but Kepler will have a hard time finding those. It may take a long time before we discover what a truly "typical" solar system is like.

Re:Kepler may define "typical" solar system (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359874)

> There is a bias in the sampling.

Sure, but it is well-understood and so can be compensated for.

Re:Kepler may define "typical" solar system (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363390)

How can it be compensated for, if we don't know what Kepler isn't observing?

Re:Kepler may define "typical" solar system (1)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359296)

Strange to think that the rocky cores of our planets (and all the heavy elements) came from the exploded remains of a fast-living red giant that went supernova. The remaining hydrogen/helium reforms a new star (our Sun) and the atmospheres of the gas giant planets, while the heavy elements formed the rocky planets. Always wondered where our solar system is located relative to the original red giant.

Earth is 22 "galactic years" old (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359744)

That is that many revolutions of the galaxy since condensation. So any parental object or cloud may be long lost. Maybe not: astronomers are a clever bunch.

Re:Kepler may define "typical" solar system (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359934)

First, red giants [wikipedia.org] are the last phase of stars that live a long time, and they generally don't go supernova. I think that created the heavy elements in our solar system were blue giants [wikipedia.org] that burn their nuclear fuel quickly and generally go supernova. Second, what makes you think the material that formed the solar system came from only one supernova? I was always under the impression that it came from multiple supernova events. Do we know which is the case?

Re:Kepler may define "typical" solar system (1)

mikael (484) | more than 3 years ago | (#35362372)

Yes, blue giants - that was the term mentioned in many articles about the history of the solar system. That's an interesting thought - would a supernova leave behind enough material for another star large enough to form and then go supernova again. Did one supergiant form the local area of stars that surround our sun. Whatever fragments remained of the heavy element core that formed the first time, would act as a nucleus for new stars the next time round. As these stars went supernova, their remains would gradually spread over a wider volume of space, and get smaller until only red giants could form.

Re:Kepler may define "typical" solar system (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35364628)

I don't mean a sequential chain of stars. I mean material from different stars coming together. When the Milky Way first formed, large stars would have quickly formed and gone supernova. That gas had billions of years to circle the Milky Way many times. In fact the Milky Way was formed from many different galaxies, so the supernovae could have been from different galaxies. The gas from all the supernovae would just mix together. Are the interstellar gas clouds we observe all each from just one star? Or are they a mix of many supernova remnants plus the original gas the Milky Way formed from all mixed up over billions of years?

When the models produce bizarre results... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357918)

It seems like every press release about the Kepler mission is about how bizarre and unlikely the systems it discovers are. Since it never directly observes these systems, and since it infers the existence of these planets from various models and indirect observations, I'm starting to wonder if these models accurately reflect the realty of these systems.

It's getting to the point where the likelihood that our models are wrong is almost as believable as the likelihood that these systems exist as described. Perhaps there are some other factors in play here that could explain the observations in a simpler manner. (disclaimer: I am not a scientist)

Re:When the models produce bizarre results... (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358266)

The solar systems are bizarre only from a subjective viewpoint of considering our solar system normal. It could be that a solar system with near circular orbits and with small, rocky planets near the star and gas giants further away is actually unlikely and bizarre.

Re:When the models produce bizarre results... (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359324)

Probably not. These are not models of complicated things (like solar system formation). These are models to explain periodicities seen in light curves due to transiting planets., so it's just a matter of figuring out periods and amplitudes. A complicated case might be mis-interpreted, but there is no way that a simple case (i.e., one planet) will appear complicated (i.e., lots).

Speeds (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357948)

10 days around our Sun:
2.43 million miles per hour

365 days around hour Sun:
66.6 thousand miles per hour

Purdy quick either way I'd say.

Re:Speeds (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35361742)

Wouldn't that depend on the radius from the star? Closer to the star the faster your tangential velocity needs to be to maintain orbit.

I know what they did wrong (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358018)

NASA, you guys have it pointed backwards.

Yo Dawg... (2, Interesting)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358046)

... one with planets that all orbit their planets in less than 10 days

Yo Dawg... I heard you like planets. So we put a planet in your planets so you can orbit while you are resonating!

may the next person (0, Troll)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358268)

who makes a "that's no moon" reference die of syphilis

have a nice day

Re:may the next person (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358640)

But that's no moon, that's an unusual solar system.

Re:may the next person (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35360932)

That's no syphilis ...

The coming dark (2)

BearRanger (945122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358292)

For some reason I was reminded of Asimov's "Nightfall". It's sounding just a little less far-fetched now.

Re:The coming dark (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35361058)

You thought Nightfall was far-fetched? Really?? I think it's one of my all-time-favourite Sci-Fi stories exactly because it's completely plausible.

Most science fiction these days is full of implausible assumptions and "physics" which may as well be complete magic. Even good science fiction usually has at least one far-fetched premise in order to set up an interesting storyline. But Nightfall didn't really do any of that. We know that there are solar systems with multiple suns, and we know they can stay stable for a long time, so the only thing he needed to assume was that a planet exists in such a system where at least one sun is always visible, and that intelligent life arose on that planet. What's far-fetched about that?

Re:The coming dark (1)

BearRanger (945122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35361202)

It's one of my all time favorites too. By less far-fetched I simply mean that observing complex orbital systems makes it more "real" to me than just theoretically positing one.

Re:The coming dark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35365166)

Asimov meticulously researched the mathematics of the world in "Nightfall" to make sure it was possible.

They're all strange (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358390)

I think that we will find that all solar systems are strange, including our own. It appears that planetary formation is a fairly chaotic process.

Bizarre solar systems? Good! (1)

caladine (1290184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358422)

The way I figure it, the more bizarre the better. We learn a lot more from the systems that challenge our conventional definitions than ones that tend to fit what we already think we know.

No pictures? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358518)

What good is the article without pictures? (Well, an artist's conception doesn't really count.)

Re:No pictures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358592)

You are either trying for a funny, or have no idea at all how the Kepler spacecraft detects planets, do you?

The only pictures you would see are a bunch of stars and then the exact same bunch of stars, but the brightness of one of them might be a tiny bit different as a planet crosses the face of its star.

Re:No pictures? (1)

Kiffer (206134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358944)

I assumed the OP meant a nice informative diagram rather than an actual image of the planets... the pretty artists rendition of a star and a planet doesn't do the complexity of the orbit any justice.

Re:No pictures? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359676)

Well, I didn't... or I'd forgotten, at least.

Some diagrams would have been nice, though (as Kiffer suggested). And how in the world does that even work well enough? Wouldn't you have to be on edge with a planet's orbit to see it crossing its star?

Worst summary ever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358584)

Is there an award for this? Because someone's a strong contender...

Kepler didn't find the first multi-planet systems (1)

Maritz (1829006) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358588)

TFA states "The Kepler Space Telescope observes stars to see if they show a planetary body transiting in front of them. Thus far it has discovered more than 1,200 planets and candidates. It has found the first evidence of a rocky body, and seen the first multi-planet systems."

Even the first ever detected planets were in a multi planet system (albeit around a pulsar, certainly not somewhere you'd necessarily expect to find intact planets) PSR B1257 [wikipedia.org] and Gliese 581 [wikipedia.org] was found to have six planets before Kepler was even launched.

Still a great telescope and a great project. Hopefully its results will get the out of mothballs. [wikipedia.org]

Orbits in a single day! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358624)

and one with worlds so tightly packed that one orbits its star in a single day.

Doesn't Mercury do that? I know it's something like 88 "Earth-days", but pretty sure it is only one Mercury-day.

Re:Orbits in a single day! (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358742)

No.

Although Mercury is not tidally locked to the Sun, its rotational period is tidally coupled to its orbital period. Mercury rotates one and a half times during each orbit. Because of this 3:2 resonance, a day on Mercury (sun rise to sun rise) is 176 Earth days long.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/mercury.htm [solarviews.com]

Re:Orbits in a single day! (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359828)

The Italian astronomer Schiaparelli concluded, based on observations in 1882/83, that Mercury was tidally locked (albeit with a large libration), and thus had an 88 day rotation period. This was in all of the textbooks, and many science fiction stories, for about 80 years. In 1965 radar observations of the planet showed that this conclusion was wrong. The leading versus trailing edge Doppler shift in the radar data showed immediately that the rotation period was 59 days, although Gordon Pettengill told me once that they didn't believe it at first, assuming the old optical period had to be correct and there had to be some sort of error with the radar data.

In the case of Mercury, the period of rotation of the planet, and its synodic period with Earth, means that every other observing opportunity shows the same side of Mercury to the Earth. Ground based Mercury observations are notoriously hard, and Schiaparelli must have seen the same features (his famous "figure 5") on multiple observations, and concluded that the planet was tidally locked, ignoring any discordant observations from the "in between" observations. I can't find a link, but Sky and Telescope for March has an article on Schiaparelli which goes into this in detail.

IBTimes AGAIN? (0)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358902)

Where are all these IBTimes submissions coming from now? I can't recall any IBTimes references at all before a few months ago, now all of a sudden can't seem to go a day without seeing one. This seems like a deliberate planned campaign.

Re:IBTimes AGAIN? (0)

erichill (583191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35361680)

Slashdotting + Ad click revenue => $$$

Re:IBTimes AGAIN? (2)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363582)

If you look at the profile of the original submitter, he's fairly new to Slashdot and has submitted many dozens of articles, but the ONLY SOURCE he has ever referenced has been IBTimes. I believe there's one or two more like him. IOW, they're being paid by IBTimes to do this.

NOT Solar systems! (3, Insightful)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359636)

You can call them planetary systems or even star/stellar systems if you refer to their stars, but they are definitely not "solar" systems since they are... well... extrasolar!

/. gone wrong? (2)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359710)

Forget the horrible summary.

I set the comment slider to 2.5 (what the heck does that mean, anyway?). At this threshold, I'm supposed to see four comments. Instead, there's only one.

Can someone please fix this?

Yes, I know I'm off topic, but where is this on topic? I'm finding /. less readable with the new style, which breaks the usability of the site. Therefore, I just go to /. less frequently. :-(

Re:/. gone wrong? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35360278)

I set the comment slider to 2.5 (what the heck does that mean, anyway?).

2.5 means 3. There are 8 "notches", but 7 labels, so the slider falls out of alignment with the scale.

(The highest (left-most) setting abbreviates even +5 comments. So the scale needs an extra label, ">5".)

I'm more annoyed at the links on the main-page randomly linking back to the main-page rather than the article. Something to do with the auto-update script(s), but not consistent/repeatable enough for a bug-report.

Re:/. gone wrong? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35361200)

I'm more annoyed at the links on the main-page randomly linking back to the main-page rather than the article. Something to do with the auto-update script(s), but not consistent/repeatable enough for a bug-report.

Those are the one-line stories... clicking them once expands them, and then the "Read the ___ comments" link always works correctly.

Re:/. gone wrong? (1)

everithe (915847) | more than 3 years ago | (#35364006)

I had a similar problem recently, I think. There's a "Retrieve _____ comments" option under the Discussions tab in your Options. I found that mine was set to "Few" instead of "Many". Could it be that?

optimistic (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359802)

The Kepler statistics so far have constrained a "minimal radius" of orbit. There is a big decline below that. I presume the planets are either eroded by the super-hot corona, or tidally broken in too close an orbit.

this is all patently untrue (2)

gosand (234100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359930)

I just checked my Bible, and there's nothing in there about any of this.

Re:this is all patently untrue (2)

discord5 (798235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35360854)

I think the first page of your bible is missing. The one that says:

This book is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual people or events is purely coincidental

Re:this is all patently untrue (1)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 3 years ago | (#35361226)

Of course there's not. Kepler wasn't launched until almost 2000 years after the last book of the Bible was wrapped up.

If you want more on Kepler ST, but want it blended with bible-believing religious types, you already missed one event [byu.edu] but you can probably still join the conversation now [catholic.com] from the comfort of your armchair...

Incredible (1)

Metabolife (961249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35359938)

I'm surprised this isn't getting more coverage. This is one of the biggest advancements in astronomy we've seen in years.

Re:Incredible (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#35363394)

Oh, agreed, but Kepler is pumping these things out so fast that even I can't keep up. It's getting hard to decide what the "important" announcements are, especially outside of very targeted news sources.

Any Signatures of Slartibartfast? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35360066)

Any of them at ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha? Probably some were designed and paid for by non other than our little furry creatures. MICE

Probably all those bizarre systems were build back when wealth was abundant and oil prices were lower :P

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>